If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are currently viewing our forums as a GUEST.

This allows you to read, but not participate in our discussions.

This also prevents you from downloading attachments and seeing some of our specialized sub-forums.

Registration is free and painless and requires absolutely no personal information other than a valid email address.

You can register for our history forums here. [this reminder disappears once you are registered]

A jury convicted a white Michigan man of assault on Friday for firing a shotgun at a black teen who knocked on his door to ask for directions on his way to school.

Brennan Walker, 14, had missed his bus on the morning of April 12, so he stopped at the Rochester Hills home of Jeffrey Zeigler to ask for directions. But the boy was met by the shotgun-wielding homeowner and ran away, barely escaping injury as Zeigler fired at him.

Zeigler, 53, was found guilty of assault with attempt to do great bodily harm and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony.

Though he was charged with suspicion of assault with attempt to murder, the jury "determined Mr. Zeigler did not intend to kill Brennan Walker," said defense attorney Rob Morad.

The lawyer said the gun charge alone comes with a mandatory two years behind bars, to be completed before the assault sentence even starts. The assault conviction could carry anywhere from a few months to a 10-year maximum, he said.

Perhaps the shooter should be given a chance at a public apology or similar...just give the man a chance at a much lower sentence I say. . I disagree with much of the US justice system, we provide some of the harshest prison sentences in the world.

My heart goes out to the kid...knocking on someones door is no excuse for a gun to be pulled let alone shot. It is only normal that folks might get lost, in the past in the USA someone knocking on the door asking for directions would have been treated with milk and cookies, that was when the USA had honor.

Comment

Originally posted by wolfhndView PostWhat conservatives are saying is we will worry about the racist when leftists start worrying about crime rates amongst minorities, the relationship between crime and the welfare states deconstruction of the family, the authoritarian nature of every leftists government that ever existed, and blatant hypocrisy of liberals who never suffer the consequences of their virtue signalling.

If you don't live in a minority community, have never had a manual labor job, never owned a business, never worried about you job being taken by a migrant or a foreign worker, refuse to discuss IQ, have little experience with real socialism, think Marx was an economist and in general take pieces of paper as proof of merit then you probably don't know what you are talking about anyway.

What I am saying is that I am worried when supposedly LEO experts show so much bias against the blacks. If a person is called a thug and is treated like a thug by LEOs who are often conducting investigations of crimes involving minorities, then there will be injustice. The rest is just mambo jumbo from your comfort of your living-room. The usual white conservatives never suffer the consequences of racism. They are rarely stopped without reason in the supposedly progressive New York (see stop and frisk tactics) or in AZ (see Arpaio tactics). Also, the issue of crime is not so severe in the "welfare' EU states. But if it is about finding an excuse to justify inaction, anything goes, I guess...

I feel most LE in the USA would not view a black kid with no criminal record as a little thug. What say you?

You remind us of important points though, that in the USA there are those with anti American and anti humane views such as those whom automatically assume a kid knocking on the door for directions is a little thug.

During the trial which began Monday, Zeigler took the stand in his own defense, claiming his intent was to fire a warning shot upward rather than to hurt the teen, Brennan Walker, 14 at the time of the April 12 incident. A home surveillance video presented as evidence showed what appears to be Zeigler aiming a shotgun in the direction of Brennan as he ran from the home’s porch, and firing.

He said exactly the same thing "experts" in the locked thread said when they questioned (for no reason) the charges of the prosecutor against Ziegler.

Also,

Zeigler said he mistakenly thought Brennan, at 6 feet, 2 inches tall, was an adult and that “instinct” drove him to grab a weapon to protect his wife.

Comment

I do not disagree with you for the most part. I do think that most people will not issue that someone is a "thug" as some of the participants in the locked forum assumed and posted.
I do have a concern about peer pressure which may affect even decent cops to speak against some of their members. Unfortunately, some of the older supervisors in the police force come from an era when many of them were accustomed to discrimination against blacks, especially in the South.

I also agree about the harsh penalties in the US. I will clarify thought that we still do not know the exact sentence for Ziegler. All we know is that he is guilty of assault with intent to cause great bodily harm, and that he has a previous conviction of discharging a gun during a road rage event. The sentence will be delivered in a few weeks. And I am sure that unlike what law "experts" said in the locked thread, it will be more than a $250 dollar fine!

My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

Comment

IF Ziegler has a history of using fire arms in such reckless manner then he should spend a least a year to think about it. Then as a felon, no more toys legally. Of course it seems to be the type that would get a gun again soon after getting out.

A jury convicted a white Michigan man of assault on Friday for firing a shotgun at a black teen who knocked on his door to ask for directions on his way to school.

Brennan Walker, 14, had missed his bus on the morning of April 12, so he stopped at the Rochester Hills home of Jeffrey Zeigler to ask for directions. But the boy was met by the shotgun-wielding homeowner and ran away, barely escaping injury as Zeigler fired at him.

Zeigler, 53, was found guilty of assault with attempt to do great bodily harm and possession of a firearm in the commission of a felony.

Though he was charged with suspicion of assault with attempt to murder, the jury "determined Mr. Zeigler did not intend to kill Brennan Walker," said defense attorney Rob Morad.

The lawyer said the gun charge alone comes with a mandatory two years behind bars, to be completed before the assault sentence even starts. The assault conviction could carry anywhere from a few months to a 10-year maximum, he said.

Now, just for the fun of it and in order to expose the incompetent judgement of some law enforcement posters here who BS this forum with their dubious (and veryyyyy biased) expertise, take a look at some of the posts in the thread in which the case was originally discussed

During the trial which began Monday, Zeigler took the stand in his own defense, claiming his intent was to fire a warning shot upward rather than to hurt the teen, Brennan Walker, 14 at the time of the April 12 incident. A home surveillance video presented as evidence showed what appears to be Zeigler aiming a shotgun in the direction of Brennan as he ran from the home’s porch, and firing.

He said exactly the same thing "experts" in the locked thread said when they questioned (for no reason) the charges of the prosecutor against Ziegler.

Also,

Zeigler said he mistakenly thought Brennan, at 6 feet, 2 inches tall, was an adult and that “instinct” drove him to grab a weapon to protect his wife.

I do not disagree with you for the most part. I do think that most people will not issue that someone is a "thug" as some of the participants in the locked forum assumed and posted.
I do have a concern about peer pressure which may affect even decent cops to speak against some of their members. Unfortunately, some of the older supervisors in the police force come from an era when many of them were accustomed to discrimination against blacks, especially in the South.

I also agree about the harsh penalties in the US. I will clarify thought that we still do not know the exact sentence for Ziegler. All we know is that he is guilty of assault with intent to cause great bodily harm, and that he has a previous conviction of discharging a gun during a road rage event. The sentence will be delivered in a few weeks. And I am sure that unlike what law "experts" said in the locked thread, it will be more than a $250 dollar fine!

Well I know an older retired cop whom thinks LE whom cross the line should be punished harshly. I could see an issue though like you say. If one is pro CSA then of course they will be anti black so that is an issue. That said in my area the LE is just.

As for the video It looked like attempted murder. Previously I thought the guy shot the gun in the air, but the video showed him shooting in the direction of the kid. I see recklessness and violence in that video, the man have to perhaps serve a few years, not months but years in the jail. Thanks for the link.

Comment

It must be obvious to anyone who can read the locked thread that it just did not make sense to have a 30-page thread about an event that did not appear that complicated. The fact that became so long was only because some people give too much value to the views of agitators who claim to be "experts" and who try to defend indefensible acts.

In this case, we had a white guy who a previous criminal record against a black kid with no known criminal record.

A Warren police report reviewed by The Detroit News reveals Jeffrey C. Zeigler, then 39, was stopped and arrested by police after a 43-year-old Clawson man reported him as the motorist who fired a handgun at him on westbound Interstate 696 after the two men “flipped off” each other about 3 p.m. Dec. 13, 2004.

Zeigler eventually pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge but served no jail time, court records show.

We also had a case in which we knew that there was a video of the incident and a charge against the white homeowner. But nooooo, for some people here the white owner STILL appeared to be more credible than the black kid, so they intervened in the thread which reported this event in order to defend their "worldviews." THIS is why that thread became 30-pages long!

Make no mistake! If anyone who tries to play the "expert" here in law or law enforcement or any other field, says things that prove to be wayyyyyyyy off the mark and detached from reality, he will be held accountable. If someone wants here to be considered an "expert", he will have to earn it by his comments which must show consistently an ability to understand the relevant facts of the case he discusses. Failure to do so, means that I will attack (using real facts) his views, and I wlll expose his incompetency!

Um, evidence of prior crimes is not proof of the current crime he is charged with.
There are a couple of exceptions to that rule, but none that would seem to apply here.
By they way, I will play "expert".

The defendant is innocent until proven guilty and the issue is whether there is adequate evidence to support the charge in question.
The cool thing is that a jury makes its decision based upon ALL the evidence, rather than just snippets of it.
Those who said he was innocent until proven guilty are were right. Those who assumed guilt based on prior acts and their own prejudices were not.

The fact that the defendant in this case may have been found guilty of other offenses is not evidence he is guilty of this one and, as far as the trial was concerned, had no more relevance than the kid's prior criminal history positive or negative.

Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

Comment

Um, evidence of prior crimes is not proof of the current crime he is charged with.
There are a couple of exceptions to that rule, but none that would seem to apply here.
By they way, I will play "expert".

The defendant is innocent until proven guilty and the issue is whether there is adequate evidence to support the charge in question.
The cool thing is that a jury makes its decision based upon ALL the evidence, rather than just snippets of it.
Those who said he was innocent until proven guilty are were right. Those who assumed guilt based on prior acts and their own prejudices were not.

The fact that the defendant in this case may have been found guilty of other offenses is not evidence he is guilty of this one and, as far as the trial was concerned, had no more relevance than the kid's prior criminal history positive or negative.

As an expert you just failed!

You did not get that the issue of prior conviction was mentioned not to argue that he is guilty of this crime but to argue about the severity of the punishment he will get as a result of this crime which according to the jury DID happen based on evidence like the f**** video I posted (which was used as evidence from the trial) and Ziegler's obvious lies! As an "expert" you do understand that those who are repeated offenders get higher sentences, right?

Also, those who said that he is innocent until proven guilty also said that the black kid was a "thug"! See third post of this thread. So, their double standards are obvious. You can choose to call them racists or professionally incompetent (choose whichever you think is best or you may call them both) but it is obvious that they have lost their credibility as "experts"!

Comment

Um, evidence of prior crimes is not proof of the current crime he is charged with.
There are a couple of exceptions to that rule, but none that would seem to apply here.
By they way, I will play "expert".

The defendant is innocent until proven guilty and the issue is whether there is adequate evidence to support the charge in question.
The cool thing is that a jury makes its decision based upon ALL the evidence, rather than just snippets of it.
Those who said he was innocent until proven guilty are were right. Those who assumed guilt based on prior acts and their own prejudices were not.

The fact that the defendant in this case may have been found guilty of other offenses is not evidence he is guilty of this one and, as far as the trial was concerned, had no more relevance than the kid's prior criminal history positive or negative.

As an expert you just failed!

You did not get that the issue of prior conviction was mentioned not to argue that he is guilty of this crime but to argue about the severity of the punishment he will get as a result of this crime which according to the jury DID happen based on evidence like the f**** video I posted (which was used as evidence from the trial) and Ziegler's obvious lies! As an "expert" you do understand that those who are repeated offenders get higher sentences, right?

Also, those who said that he is innocent until proven guilty also said that the black kid was a "thug"! See third post of this thread. So, their double standards are obvious. You can choose to call them racists or professionally incompetent (choose whichever you think is best or you may call them both) but it is obvious that they have lost their credibility as "experts"!

I responded to what you said in your post.
You might want to read it again.

As an expert I understood what I said, you did not.
You might want to reread what I said again, after reading your own post.

Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

Comment

I responded to what you said in your post.
You might want to read it again.

As an expert I understood what I said, you did not.
You might want to reread what I said again, after reading your own post.

As an "expert" you understood what you said but you did not understand what I said and the reasons I said it. You responded based on faulty assumptions regarding the reason I mentioned Ziegler's prior conviction. You also tried to isolate a single sentence from the post I was criticizing like I was arguing that it is wrong to say "innocent until proven guilty." If that was just the point of the "expert" in the locked thread, it would not be an issue and I would not have gone after him.

But this was not was he just said. He also called the victim a "thug" and he also made the claim that if Zeigler was found guilty, he would most probably get away with a $250 fine even though the charges were serious and even though it was known at the time that the prosecutors had a video from Ziegler's security camera which contradicted his account, and that Ziegler had a prior conviction involving a gun discharge!. So stop acting like my issue was the "innocent until proven guilty" My issue was that the supposedly expert LEO showed veryyy poor skills and a clear bias in analyzing the facts of this case when he was trying to make predictions

. And if you noticed, the habit of having people arguing here legal cases before any conclusion is common, and while it is true that legally everybody is innocent until proven guilty, this does not imply that one who tries to analyze the available facts should conclude that the most probable outcome of a trial is that the defender is innocent!

Finally, you decided to argue that somehow I used Ziegler's prior conviction to argue that it is proof for the current crime that was committed while I talked about the previous conviction because it affected Ziegler's credibility . Do you understand the difference between what what I ACTUALLY said and what YOU CLAIM I said?

Comment

I responded to what you said in your post.
You might want to read it again.

As an expert I understood what I said, you did not.
You might want to reread what I said again, after reading your own post.

As an "expert" you understood what you said but you did not understand what I said and the reasons I said it. You responded based on faulty assumptions regarding the reason I mentioned Ziegler's prior conviction. You also tried to isolate a single sentence from the post I was criticizing like I was arguing that it is wrong to say "innocent until proven guilty." If that was just the point of the "expert" in the locked thread, it would not be an issue and I would not have gone after him.

But this was not was he just said. He also called the victim a "thug" and he also made the claim that if Zeigler was found guilty, he would most probably get away with a $250 fine even though the charges were serious and even though it was known at the time that the prosecutors had a video from Ziegler's security camera which contradicted his account, and that Ziegler had a prior conviction involving a gun discharge!. So stop acting like my issue was the "innocent until proven guilty" My issue was that the supposedly expert LEO showed veryyy poor skills and a clear bias in analyzing the facts of this case when he was trying to make predictions

. And if you noticed, the habit of having people arguing here legal cases before any conclusion is common, and while it is true that legally everybody is innocent until proven guilty, this does not imply that one who tries to analyze the available facts should conclude that the most probable outcome of a trial is that the defender is innocent!

Finally, you decided to argue that somehow I used Ziegler's prior conviction to argue that it is proof for the current crime that was committed while I talked about the previous conviction because it affected Ziegler's credibility . Do you understand the difference between what what I ACTUALLY said and what YOU CLAIM I said?

This may surprise you, but we do not rely on the media to provide the evidence on which to convict.
What a jury sees and hears is very different from the snippets we get from the media.
As such, it is not good practice to convict people based on what we are told of an event.

I commented on what you said, not on what you want to pretend was said.
You commented that the case wasn’t complicated and the first point you made was that the defendant had prior run ins with the law. Your point was obvious and I interpreted it exactly as you intended.
cheers.

Avatar is General Gerard, courtesy of Zouave.

Churchill to Chamberlain: you had a choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.

Comment

This may surprise you, but we do not rely on the media to provide the evidence on which to convict.
What a jury sees and hears is very different from the snippets we get from the media.
As such, it is not good practice to convict people based on what we are told of an event.

I commented on what you said, not on what you want to pretend was said.
You commented that the case wasn’t complicated and the first point you made was that the defendant had prior run ins with the law. Your point was obvious and I interpreted it exactly as you intended.
cheers.

Bold mine

It surprises me to hear this from you when you spent countless posts talking about Hilary's investigation. So spare me with your hypocrisy! .Also a person who calls the black teenager a "thug" has already revealed that he is not among those who prefer to let the jury and the courts make such evaluations.

Next time you comment on what I say, spend some effort to read the whole post instead of butchering what I say in order to pretend that I make the point you want me to make. That the case was simple for us to discuss was not a single result of the fact that Ziegler had a prior conviction. I listed many reasons, and the combination of those reasons made the issue quite simple for us to discuss. There were not any contradictory evidence present to justify a 30-page analysis in the locked thread. The prior conviction also played a role in the discussion regarding Ziegler's possible sentence. Repeated offenders do to get away with a slap on the wrist like the LEO in the locked forum tried to argue when he made the comment that if Ziegler was found guilty he will get away with a $250 fine..

Finally, it is OBVIOUS that you tried to create a strawman since you argued that I claimed that the prior conviction was proof that Ziegler was guilty for the crime that he is accused while I used his prior conviction to argue about his low credibility! I say it CLEARLY in the part of my post you left out of your "analysis"

Originally posted by pamakBut nooooo, for some people here the white owner STILL appeared to be more credible than the black kid, so they intervened in the thread which reported this event in order to defend their "worldviews." THIS is why that thread became 30-pages long!

There is NOWHERE in my post any mentioning of 'PROOF" as you claim that I said.

Originally posted by Cambronnne
Um, evidence of prior crimes is not proof of the current crime he is charged with.

Ziegler's prior conviction (in coordination with the lack of similar information about the kid made it OBVIOUS in the thread we were discussing that Ziegler's version of events should not be trusted. Ziegler had an OBVIOUS issue of credibility!

p.s. I use different (red) color in the quote for contrast between quotes from different posters